My perspective is that the critique of political economy (published and unpublished) make up a distinctly differennrt corpus, not scientific in the sense in whch the term is used today but in in the rather diffeenct and more complex sense of his time and nation. These works cohere (mostly) because of their focus on a dialectical whole: capitalism, a unique social formation.
His other writings are often profoudnd and always intellectually invigorating, but they do NOT have the coherence of his critique, nor do they relate to all possible conditions in the way that his critique relates to all possible forms of capitalism (and thus is not an emprical description of _any_ particular form of capitalism). (His 'ladder' to the perspectve from which that critique was written was what we call historial materialism, but that does not necessarily constitute an Theory of History in the sense that the critique constitutes a Theoryu of capitalism, and need not be taken "whole" in the way the critique probably must be. In fact I doubt very much that Marx himself saw his thought as constituing as complete and coherent a whole as Ted seems to assume to some extent.
And Marx's comments on politics (and revolujtion) are particularly scattered, probably not even wholly consistent, and focused on the politics of his own day. It is disastrous to try to 'gather' those varius remarks into anything liek a Theory of Revolution. Besides, there is no such thing as a Theory of Revolution.
His comments on anhropology (broaddly defined) are also scattered and do not have the density and care that his critique shows. In particular, I don't think he probably has much to tell us about concrete questions of psychology, and I reject off hand Ted's transhistorical conception of "the rational" and "rationallity" or the fully rational individual. And I fail to see how Marx's concepts of prejudice and superstition can be of any use whtever in understanding the Chinese or Russian Revolutons OR the various periods of mass left upsurge in France, Italy, Germany, and the U.s. _or_ the struggles for natioal liberation, both the successful ones and the failures, that marked the second half of the 20-th century.To assume that they do is even, I might say, unmarxian, ignoring Marx's respect for the power of contingency in human affairs.
Incidentally, I have profited immensely by reading Ted's posts over the years and look forward to learning more from them, whether in agreement or not.
Carrol
Marv Gandall wrote:
>
> On 2010-02-20, at 5:29 PM, Ted Winslow wrote:
>
> > Marv Gandall wrote:
> >
> >> The goal of those who made the French and Russian revolutions - including their leaders, let it be added - was not to replace the Bourbons and Romanovs with another unaccountable tyranny of the party or of the bureaucracy or of the supreme leader. Why and how these revolutions evolved in this direction is another question, whose answer lies in the social and economic and international context in which they were situated rather than in mass political psychology
> >
> > Marx, in contrast, derives despotism from the "superstition" and "prejudice" of the masses, i.e. from "mass political psychology."
> >
> > [...]
>
> > In fact, superstition and prejudice were characteristic of the individuality of both Russian and Chinese peasants.
> >
> > Marx's understanding of the requirements for the development of enlightenment is mistaken. Among other things, superstition and prejudice are much more securely anchored than he imagined...
> ==================================
> Then how to explain the Russian and Chinese revolutions which each rested on mass peasant support? Social conditions promoted changes in peasant consciousness which was reflected in their abandonment of the old order and ancient prejudices. These latter proved to be not as "securely anchored" as Ted supposes. The new peasant recruits, to be sure, were generally not as politically sophisticated as the urban intellectuals and worker cadres who belonged to the Russian and Chinese communist parties. But they had a degree of political understanding which enabled them to recognize their class interests and to distinguish between those parties which supported them and those institutions which oppressed them - unlike previous peasant generations weighed down by old habits and superstitions. Their cultural level was further enhanced by their participation in the Communist party and the revolutionary struggle and the subsequent literacy and other programs introduced in the Soviet Un
i!
> on and the People's Republic. Neither was peasant support of the Stalinist and Maoist regimes so blindly and securely anchored that it extended even to the programs of forced collectivization in the 30's and 50's which worsened their conditions.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk